eprom
|
|
ethics in photography...
| 
May 20 02:52 UTC 2004 |
My sister and her friend took me to a cemetary in Chicago where all
these famous people (Rockefellers, Mccormicks, etc) are buried to take
pictures of headstones. This seemed to me at the time to kind of goulish
to me. But come to find out, alot of people go there and do the same thing.
Where does one draw the line between photojournalism, exploitation and
art?
What is "reasonable privacy" in regards to photography? I've heard this
debate come up with the camera phones and the possiblity of states
enacting some sort of legislation against taking peoples pictures
without their knowledge.
I'm guessing a professional photographer would have more freedom in what
they take photos of. A photographer taking pictures of 9/11 and a
paparazzi taking pictures of famous people? Both seem exploitive...
What if you want to take a picture of a group of people to convey a
sense of spontaneity, going up to the subjects and asking to take their
picture seems to defeat the purpose almost?
Do you just take nice happy pictures to avoid any type of ethical issue
coming up? What are your ethical "rules" in dealing with photography?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 1 of 2:
|
May 20 05:21 UTC 2004 |
At least in regard to cemetaries - the ornaments there have been put in a
public place in order to be seen by the public. I cannot imagine anything
unethical about photographing them for legitimate (including personal)
reasons. (Illegitimate reasons might be to the use of the pictures to
in some fashion ridicule the deceased, although the fault there lies
in the ridicule, not whether it is accompanied by a photograph or not).
Photographic exploitation consists of taking photographs of persons
and things that those persons or owners of the things do not wish to
be photographd *and* using those photographs in an exploitive manner.
|